Abstract: Part One: Nomination politics. Early days and intial contests. Mist clearing and the convention. Part Two: Electoral Politics. Time and internal Structure. External structure. Part Three: Campaign Strategies. The 1970's. The 1980 campaign. The 1984 Campaign. The 1984 Campaign. The 1988 Campaign. Part Four: Citizen response. Citizen response. Appendix. Bibliography.

Abstract: T HE SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS of the late 1960s and early 1970s revived the question of the nature of the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent to these nominations. Should there or should there not be a presumption in favor of the President's choice? On what basis should the Senate decide whether or not to give its consent? On what basis does it decide? The record of Senate consideration of Supreme Court nominations in this century strongly suggests that there is a Senate presumption in favor of confirmation. An examination of the last eight nominations to the Supreme Court shows that ideological opposition alone is not sufficient to make a nomination highly controversial. However, a breakdown of the Senate vote on the four most controversial of these nominations-those of Abe Fortas, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, and William Rehnquist-shows that once a nomination becomes controversial, the ideological position of a senator is a major factor in determining how he will vote. The existence of a presumption in favor of confirmation of other high government officials, such as cabinet officers and ambassadors, has long been recognized. Since the President is ultimately responsible for their conduct in office, he has a right to advisors and officers of his choice unless they can be shown to be immoral or incompetent. However, a view of Supreme Court justices as the President's subordinates would be a violation of the concept of separation of powers between equal and coordinate branches of the

Abstract: MONG THE CURIOUS FEATURES of American politics is the practice of selecting the wife of a congressman to succeed him upon his death. The pattern began in 1923, little more than six years after the first woman won a seat in the House of Representatives and only three years after the Nineteenth Amendment legalized female suffrage throughout the country.' As might be expected, a fair amount of attention has been given in the professional literature to this "matrimonial connection." It was examined within a cross-national perspective as early as 1926,2 and such contemporary students of politics as Amundsen,3 Chamberlin,4

Abstract: Category Owmenhip Status district public A occupied ) X bullding(s) 2 private unoccupied structure both w o r k in progress site Public Acquisition Accessible object Pl,& in process y e s : restricted being considered yes: unrestricted X no Present Use agriculture commercial educational entertainment government industrial military museum park 2 L private residence religious scientific transportation other: 4. Owner of Property

Abstract: IN their article "Primary Rules, Political Power and Social Change" Lengle and Shafer1 have raised the problem of how primary rules affect the outcomes of the presidential nomination process of the Democratic party. That different rules enhance the fortunes of different candidates is probably something that practicing politicians have always known, but political scientists have not paid much attention to the problem. For their insights into the problem the authors are to be applauded. Nonetheless, there are problems with their analysis that should lead us to treat their conclusions with skepticism. Their observations and arguments may be summarized as follows: 1. The Democratic party has three basic types of primary rules: WinnerTake-All; Districted; and Proportional. Under a Winner-Take-All rule, whichever candidate wins the most votes in a given state gets all the delegates allotted to that state. Under a Districted rule, whichever candidate wins the most votes in a congressional district within a state gets all the delegates allotted to that district. Under a Proportional rule, whatever proportion of the statewide vote a given candidate receives, he receives that same proportion of the state's delegates. Under this latter plan, a 15 percent cutoff point is used: those candidates receiving less than 15 percent of the statewide vote get no delegates at all, and the delegates are apportioned among only those candidates surpassing the 15 percent point. 2. There are three major ideological wings to the Democratic party: the "social welfare" centrists whose strength lies primarily in the North; the "social engineering" liberals whose strength lies primarily in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains and West Coast; and the "social conservatives" whose strength lies primarily in the South. 3. The campaigns of centrist presidential candidates in 1972 would have been helped most by the nationwide adoption of Winner-Take-All rules and hurt by the adoption of either the Districted or Proportional rules. The liberal candidates in 1972 would have been helped substantially by the use of Proportional rules and even more by the use of Districted rules. Conservative candidates would have been treated about the same under all three rules.

Abstract: The presidential nomination process has been the subject of a number of studies in recent years, some prompted by the numerous changes in national convention delegate selection procedures, particularly in the Democratic party, since 1968. Recent works have analyzed the outcome and strategic environment of the nomination process (Keech and Matthews, 1976; Polsby and Wildavsky, 1976).1 Others have described various attributes of process participants (Kirkpatrick, 1975; Soule and Clark, 1970; Soule and McGrath, 1975)." Some studies have also analyzed the impact of new national Democratic party delegate selection guidelines upon candidate fortunes and national convention delegate attributes (Pomper, 1976; Lengle and Shafer, 1976; Jackson, 1975).3 This article analyzes several impacts of such rules upon delegate selection in two states, Iowa and Wisconsin, during the 1968-76 period of national party rules reform.

Abstract: CATEGORY —DISTRICT X-BUILDING(S) —STRUCTURE —SITE —OBJECT OWNERSHIP X.RUBLIC —PRIVATE —BOTH PUBLIC ACQUISITION —IN PROCESS —BEING CONSIDERED STATUS —OCCUPIED 3L_UNOCCUPIED —WORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE J^YES: RESTRICTED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —NO PRESENT USE —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM —COMMERCIAL —EDUCATIONAL —ENTERTAINMENT —GOVERNMENT —INDUSTRIAL —MILITARY —PARK —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —RELIGIOUS —SCIENTIFIC —TRANSPORTATION OTHER: Vacant

Abstract: state New York code 036 county Erie code 029 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public occupied ------agriculture museum X building(s) X private unoccupied X commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process X yes: restricted government ------scientific being considered yes: unrestricted industrial X transportation NA no military other: 4. Owner of Property

Abstract: Results are reported of a study to determine how citizens come to know and like or dislike presidential candidates. The Republican elections of 1980 are analysed according to: how and when citizens are introduced to political candidates, what accounts for the dynamics of awareness and recognition of candidates, how and when citizens develop affective orientations toward political .candidates, and what accounts for changes in how citizens evaluate candidates. The sample consisted of 8,000 New Jersey residents interviewed between October, 1979 and July, 1980. Participants were asked to recall names of candidates running for the presidential nomination, state candidate preference, and explain the most important reason for ,their support of the candidate. Results indicate that knowledge and opinion of presidential candidates is distributed in three layers of the public: attentive, peripheral, and inadvertent. Attentives, approximately one-third of the population, are already aware of the candidates when the media first devote attention to. the campaign. Their knowledge about the candidate is not based on prominent coverage. The peripheral, about one-fifth of the population, become aware only after exposure to the intense coverage accompanying success in a campaign test. The inadvertents, one-third of the public, also depend on such coverage, but only to the extent that they recognize candidates names rather than become aware of them. Many citizens base their evaluations upon perceptions of the candidate's competitive strength rather than on personal qualities or ideological rositions. (Author/KC) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** a. vi U S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRO: DICE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY C ('"Ff' THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIvED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN. ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOV-NECESSARILY REPRECP SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Abstract: Campaigns to win the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations are now longer, more complex, and more confusing to the observer than ever before. The maze of delegate-selection procedures includes state-run primaries and caucuses, while federal election laws govern campaign financing. In "Before the Convention", political scientist John H. Aldrich presents a systematic analysis of presidential nomination politics, based on application of rational-choice models to candidate behavior. Aldrich views the candidates as decision makers with limited resources in a highly competitive environment. From this perspective, he seeks to determine why and how candidates choose to run, why some succeed and others fail, and what consequences the nomination process has for the general election and, later, for the president in office. Now back in print, "Before the Convention" fills a significant gap in the literature on presidential politics and should be of particular importance to specialists in this area. It will be of interest also to everyone who is concerned with understanding the rules of the game for a complicated but vitally important exercise of American democracy.

Abstract: T HE iniosyNcRATic NATURE of nominating and endorsing conventions makes it difficult to explain their behavior. However, by carefully comparing political behavior in these conventions with primary elections, we can examine a number of interesting questions. Is there less competition for nomination in conventions? Political reformers view the nominating convention as inherently antidemocratic when compared with the direct primary. If this view is correct, there should be little competition in nominating conventions; only slightly more in endorsing conventions; and a much higher level of competition in primary elections." Do the results of the endorsing convention anticipate the vote in the following primary election?2 While a number of authors have